HaloScan.com - Comments

Check out what the Abadis say at

http://www.kashrut.org/faq.asp#Q7

The picture they provide is interesting and supports Prof. Felix
SS | 04.18.06 - 1:27 pm | #

This was the subject of a shiur by R' Seth Mandel at the OU conference and was discussed by R' Schachter at a recent Kollel Yom Rishon. Both basically agreed with Professor Feliks.
Nachum | 04.18.06 - 1:52 pm | #

rav schachter did say at the kollel yom rishon that a choleh who can't eat wheat matzos may use oat matzos b'dieved. he did not indicate whether or not one should make a beracha on it. It is also fairly well known that Rav Schahcter tells people not to make a mezonos on cheerios.
This isn't the only thing he agrees with professor Felix on. Rav Schachter has also said that horseradish is not one of the types pf maror mentioned in the mishanh in pesachim (the rest are green and leafy plus horseradish is sharp as opposed to bitter).
talmid | 04.18.06 - 2:52 pm | #

"Rav Hershel Schachter has told this author that in case of great need one may use oat matzah at the Pesach seder."

What about the rest of pesach?
Anonymous | 04.18.06 - 3:17 pm | #

I don't mean to suggest any halachic implications of how to treat oats for Pesach. I merely wish to raise the issue of custom. Is there evidence that oats were used centuries ago for matzoh? If not, and if oats is a European cultivar, why are people permitting it for matzoh? There are 2 main problems, as I see it. One is the fact that if oats are not of the 5 grains mentioned in Talmud, then one can't use it for matzoh. Two, is the question of time to rise to form chametz. If oats can ferment to form a bread dough, how long does one have before that happens? We no longer use the physical distinctions between unleavened and leavened dough - only the mil time measurement (taken as 18 minutes). In the absence of a long tradition of making oat dough, how much time does one have before it becomes leavened? Why do people who are zealous about the sanctity of traditions now seek out a new form of matzoh? If ther is a genuine health concern, such as sprue, then why not use millet or, even, spelt that seem to have a closer connection to wheat? I note that one variety of millet is called foxtail millet, which sounds very much like shibbolet shu'al of the Talmud.

Another issue is the question of the Ashkenazi chumrah of kitniyot. If oats are not one of the grain species mentioned in the Talmud, then why do people who are stringent about kitniyot and kitniyot products - even those not mentioned by the Ramah, not treat oats as kitniyot?

Again, it is not my province to suggest practical halacha, I just wish to raise the issues for consideration next year. It seems to me that minor digestion problems with wheat matzoh should not dictate what species to use in its place.

Y. Aharon
Y. Aharon | 04.18.06 - 4:57 pm | #

Y.:

1. Oats don't rise. You can't make bread out of oats. Or rye either, for that matter. ("Rye bread" is mostly wheat.)

2. Oats are treated as wheat. Therefore, any chumrot of kitniyot would apply to them, plus. I suppose a non-leaven corn or rice bread would be kosher l'pesach, right?
Nachum Lamm | 04.18.06 - 5:53 pm | #

You can't make a very good bread with rye or oats, but that is not to say you can't make bread at all. It is a question of degree. Barley has less gluten than wheat, so an all-barley bread won't be as good. Rye has less, so it will be even denser. And oats have the least gluten of all, but do have some, as opposed to, say, corn (maize), which has none at all. So it is incorrect to make the blanket statement that you can't make 100% rye or oat bread. Indeed, the presence of SOME gluten in oats is evidence to me that it probably is one of the 5 minim.
Ezra Daniel | 04.18.06 - 6:56 pm | #

Which Rishon states that it is oats?
SS | 04.18.06 - 7:01 pm | #

2 he'aros on the age of the universe controversy:

1 - I asked Rav Shmuel Auerbach if we can say the 6 days of creation were longer than a 24-hour period and he answered in the nagative. I asked if it was kefira/apikorsus, and he just reitterated that its assur to say this. I asked that dont some rishonim say this mehalech and he said no, its assur.

2 - I looked in Michtav M'Eliyahu (chelek 2, page 151), who I seem the recall having been quoted as a source for such a shita, and all I saw was that he quotes the Ramban (Bereishis 1:3) in which the Ramban says that the 6 days were made of hours and minutes...and then he goes into kabala, which MM tries to explain, but i did not see how the ramban or MM is on the side that says the days were millions of years old...
Anonymous | 04.19.06 - 4:02 pm | #

Anonymous:

Why didn't you ask him the important question:

How does his view fit in with the massive amount of scientific evidence that points to an ancient world? Are all the scientists evil and scheming, trying to blot out religion from the face of the earth?
General Arafat | Homepage | 04.20.06 - 2:04 am | #

I always understood that the ans to this "imp" Q is that just like Adam and Chava were created as adults, and the animals and trees were created as adults, the world was created as an adult as well. The kasha was from rishonim who express this "so called heretical" view...
Anonymous | 04.20.06 - 10:18 am | #

And the dinosaurs were created as dead adults?

Did he explain the basis of this issur? Or was the basis that he said it was assur?
Artoo | 04.20.06 - 2:56 pm | #

Anonymous:

You're joining the Slifkin fiasco about a year too late. The Gosse theory has been debated numerous times...

Even R' Gil wrote about the Gosse theory - and he doesn't really have a problem with it, as opposed to many other people (myself included) - see here:

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/200...sse- theory.html
General Arafat | Homepage | 04.20.06 - 3:10 pm | #

I've been convinced that Gosse is untenable. But you'll have to read Rabbi Slifkin's next book (not Man and Beast) to see why.
Gil | Homepage | 04.20.06 - 9:22 pm | #

To get back to the issue of the post:

There was a masorah in Europe at least among Ashkenazi Jews that one of the five species mentioned in the gemara is oats, i.e. shibboleth shual, and thus it both can become chamtez and can be used to bake matzoh. (It would also be chayyav in challah if you use enough of it to make a dough, and would require the berachos of hamotzi or mezonos, depending upon how it is prepared.)

It is quite a chiddush to say that we can reject such a masorah based upon scientific speculation -- which is basically what Prof. Feliks's work is. (Not knocking it in its own right, but the issue is whether halakha accepts what is at best an educated guess to overturn a masorah.)

I once heard of a talmid of R. Shachter who visited R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and told him that when he eats oats, he only does so during a meal or when he can pattur himself with two other foods (mezonos and ha'adama). RSZA was not impressed with this "chumra."

R. Aharon Soloveichik once gave a shiur, based on the famous teshuva of the Beis ha Levi on techeiles, where he explained that there are two kinds of masorah -- a masorah where one can figure out a din logically, and a masorah which simply identifies what things are -- what is an esrog, what is the correct text of the sefer Torah, what is the animal which gives us techeiles, etc. The latter type is not given over to logical deduction, but must be based on a tradition from generation to generation. Hence we cannot, for example, revive techeiles simply based on biological research. (If I am oversimplifying the shiur somewhat, that is my fault, but this is the essence of it.)

(As for the question about oat matzos after the first night, it is, lichora, no worse than matzo made out of rice or kitniyos, which a number of poskim do permit on the theory that kitniyos cannot be more stringent than chametz!)

R. Schachter is, I believe, a daas yachid in this area. Most poskim follow the masorah that oats are one of the five species, bein le chumrah bein le kula.

(BTW, the part about chrein is really on the edge, much more so than oats. You are essentially being motzei laaz on generations of Jews who were yirei shomayim who used chrein for Maror.)
Tal Benschar | 04.20.06 - 11:45 pm | #

There is a world of difference between arguing that Shibbolet shippun is the known European grain called oats, and actually using it to be yotzei matzoh at the seder. What evidence is there that there was actually such practice in the early middle ages?

Y. Aharon
Y. Aharon | 04.21.06 - 12:05 am | #

'You can't make bread out of oats. Or rye either, for that matter. ("Rye bread" is mostly wheat.)'

We buy wheat free rye bread at the local supermarket -- with an OU hechsher. (One of the OU rabbis at the OU Pareve Mesorah conference did not know this.)

'And oats have the least gluten of all, but do have some'

The oat matzah from Britain that is now widely distributed is almost completely gluten-free.

'Which Rishon states that it is oats?'

Rashi.
charliehall | 04.21.06 - 1:06 am | #

Y. Aharon, Isn't your argument essentially the same as whether turkey is kosher? Except, there isn't a possibility that someone has an authentic mesora regarding it prior to 16th century.
JoeCool | 04.21.06 - 1:11 am | #

Oats definitely has a mesora of being one of the five grains regarding brochos of Hamotzi,Mezonos,Al Hamichya as the opinion of Rashi was the aacepted opinion.
Ploni Almoni | 04.21.06 - 2:19 am | #

I believe a few years ago someone wrote an article in Mesora quite definitively shlugging up Felx. His word is not halacha Le Moshe Misinai you know.
Ralph | 04.21.06 - 2:25 am | #

"Isn't your argument essentially the same as whether turkey is kosher? Except, there isn't a possibility that someone has an authentic mesora regarding it prior to 16th century."

Not really. Mideoraisa, there are, potentially, hundreds of species of kosher birds which we are permitted to eat. Only those specifically listed in the Torah are forbidden to us; all the rest are permitted. It is, however, the accepted practice of Ashkenazic Jews, going back at least to the time of the Rema, not to rely on the simanim given in the gemara and to require a masorah as to each species.

The "five grains" is a din deoraysa -- there are five and only five. As stated above, these five qualify for the deoraysa laws of chametz, matso, challo and birkas ha mazon, as well as the derabbanan laws of saying hamotzi and mezonos. Here we are relying on a mesorah to determine a din deoraysa.
Tal Benschar | 04.21.06 - 6:40 am | #

Ralph:
I think that R' Gil mentioned the Mesorah article in his post. It was written by Yosef Efrati.

Tal:
I onced asked R' Avigdor Nebenzahl about Prof. Felix's chiddush, and he seemed to imply that we should be machmir and only eat it inside a seudah. I may be mistaken, because he tries to be noncommitant at times, but that is what I understood from him.
Moshe | Homepage | 04.21.06 - 7:24 am | #

Not really. Mideoraisa, there are, potentially, hundreds of species of kosher birds which we are permitted to eat. Only those specifically listed in the Torah are forbidden to us; all the rest are permitted. It is, however, the accepted practice of Ashkenazic Jews, going back at least to the time of the Rema, not to rely on the simanim given in the gemara and to require a masorah as to each species.

Since turkey was unknown to jews before Rema, Where is this mesora regarding it?

Of course if turkey isn't a kosher bird, it is 100% treif, while oats is either one of the five grains in which case you can bake it into matzo, or it isn't, in which case it can't be chometz. Either way it (oat matzo) can be eaten on Pesach.

Anyway, I was responding to the demand absolute provable mesora that oats have been used for matzo. I don't know if such exists, but I do know that there isn't one with regard to turkeys.
JoeCool | 04.21.06 - 7:53 am | #

R. Seth Mandel on this issue: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ vo...09n017.shtml#20
Gil | Homepage | 04.21.06 - 9:02 am | #

An Alter Yid once told me that he is replused by oatmeal since oats in Europe was fed to animals.
a man | 04.21.06 - 9:59 am | #

Tal, of course, R' Schachter holds that you can decide techeiles based on research as well. Otherwise, how would we know? Nevuah?

Also, it's not motzi la'az to question horseradish as marror. Use of it is rather recent. In any event, marror can be any species. Oats never existed in Israel.

Gil, would that be the second edition of Science and Torah?
Nachum | 04.21.06 - 10:25 am | #

Gil: Yasher koach for the link to Rav Seth Mandel's essay on the subject in Avodah. As usual, his comments are well-researched and highly informative. there is little for me to add to his analyis.

I was only arguing on the basis of consistency for those who are zealous about keeping minhagim and chumrot. Given that the identity of shibbolet shu'al is matter of dispute between the Rambam and Rashi, and given that oat matzot were not made until recent times, what basis is there for these machmirim to now permit or, even, advocate oat matzot? Does Rav Eliashiv have a written teshuvah which explains the basis of his alleged decision?

In general, I find the use of the term mesorah to be much overused. If Rashi uses a definition of a technical term in talmud, but there is no practical application, how does that become a mesorah?

Concerning turkey: True, this is a new-world bird that was unknown in Europe (and elsewhere) prior to the 16th century. The machmirim should, by rights, shun it as lacking an ancient mesorah. However, the bird ha s all the kosher simanim listed by Chazal, and there is no great need to forbid something which has been treated as kosher for several centuries.

Y. Aharon
Y. Aharon | 04.21.06 - 10:26 am | #

Oddly, someone (like a Brisker) who requires strong traditions would be led to *reject* oats and horseradish, not accept them.
Nachum | 04.21.06 - 10:30 am | #

Gil, would that be the second edition of Science and Torah?

Yes. Although significantly changed.
Gil | Homepage | 04.21.06 - 10:37 am | #

Speaking of RHS and his use of botanical science and history in determining halakhah, does anyone know his source for tapuah=citrus fruit (hence adding orange to haroset)? In the Bible tapuah=apple...perhaps it was in Mishnaic/Rabbinic Hebrew?
Grey Area | 04.21.06 - 10:51 am | #

In the Bible tapuah=apple

NO!!!
Gil | Homepage | 04.21.06 - 11:02 am | #

That sounded like a very definitive "no". Since at least some modern scholars confirm that apples did grow in ancient Israel and maintain the indentification (for example, IIRC, Pope in Anchor Bible Song of Songs), I would like to know who disagrees and on what basis.
Grey Area | 04.21.06 - 11:10 am | #

Did a little bit of poking around. Options: apple, quince, apricot, citrus (possibly citron). Orange mentioned but specifically rejected.
Grey Area | 04.21.06 - 11:44 am | #

Tal, of course, R' Schachter holds that you can decide techeiles based on research as well. Otherwise, how would we know? Nevuah?

A masorah of people using that item or product for the mitzvah. That is the very point of the Beis HaLevi (at least as the Soloveichik family understands it) that without such a masorah, one cannot rely on educated guesses and scientific research to identify a particular species for halakhic purposes.

Presumably, the Beis Ha Levi would say that when Eliyahu HaNavi comes and teaches the various forgotten halakhos, one of them will be the identity of the chilazon.

Also, it's not motzi la'az to question horseradish as marror. Use of it is rather recent. In any event, marror can be any species.

It is my impression that horseradish has been used for some time by Ashkenazim as maror, and the identification goes back to the Rishonim. Furthermore, I do not belive that it is accurate to say that maror can be any species; the simple reading of the gemara is that it has to be one of the five vegetables mentioned there. (Not to be confused with the five grains.)
Tal Benschar | 04.21.06 - 12:42 pm | #

"I don't mean to suggest any halachic implications of how to treat oats for Pesach... There are 2 main problems, as I see it. One is the fact that if oats are not of the 5 grains mentioned in Talmud, then one can't use it for matzoh."

I think the usual recommendation is that only people suffering from celiac disease use it for matzas mitzva.

"Two, is the question of time to rise to form chametz. If oats can ferment to form a bread dough, how long does one have before that happens? We no longer use the physical distinctions between unleavened and leavened dough - only the mil time measurement (taken as 18 minutes). In the absence of a long tradition of making oat dough, how much time does one have before it becomes leavened?"

Oats are low gluten and don't rise properly alone. The matzos are made for people who can't tolerate gluten and they seek out especially low gluten strains:

http:// chareidi.shemayisrael.com...CH65aoatmtz.htm

"Why do people who are zealous about the sanctity of traditions now seek out a new form of matzoh? If ther is a genuine health concern, such as sprue, then why not use millet or, even, spelt that seem to have a closer connection to wheat? "

They make spelt matzo too. It seems that spelt might also be problematic, see eg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzo

"Another issue is the question of the Ashkenazi chumrah of kitniyot. If oats are not one of the grain species mentioned in the Talmud, then why do people who are stringent about kitniyot and kitniyot products - even those not mentioned by the Ramah, not treat oats as kitniyot?"

R Abadi does classify it as kitniyos. To me, it seems that the question about products that are new-world is different than the question about oats. When the custom of avoiding kitniyos was promulgated they could not have intended it to cover oats, as they classified oats as one of the 5 minei dagan! Even if people are machmir on some foods that weren't available in Europe, oats were available, and couldn't have been considered kiniyos. Acc. to this reasoning, oats shouldn't be used for mitzvas matzo but oat matzo can otherwise be eaten (e.g. by people who have gluten intolerance).

"Again, it is not my province to suggest practical halacha, I just wish to raise the issues for consideration next year. It seems to me that minor digestion problems with wheat matzoh should not dictate what species to use in its place."

My understanding is that celiac disease is quite serious - is that not so? Maybe some doctor can weigh in.

I think people only eat oat matzo for health reasons. They are *very* expensive. Machine made oat matzo were $24 dollars a pound this year! I think last year they were $18 or $19. Hand matzo are even more expensive. They are sweet and taste good, but I imagine most people who use them have some health concern.
Anonymous | 04.21.06 - 1:27 pm | #

Just a few random thoughts on the relevance of this debate to Hebrew pronunciation. Some would suggest (okay, it was my own hava amina for a while) that if we are going to dye our tzitzis with murex trunculus and make a ha-adamah on oats, the logical extension is that we should be pronouncing thaf and ghimel and dhaleth in the way that I just spelled them.

Now, however, I'm thinking that perhaps pronunciation is different in 2 ways:

1. There isn't one inherently correct pronunciation. The point is simply that those around you should understand what you're saying. Ashkenazim for hundreds of years were quite aware of the halakhah of not appointing a shat"z who confuses alef and `ayin, but never took this as evidence that ther pronunciation was "wrong," and that they should consider changing.

2. It would be motzi la`az on the mesorah transmission process in the way that the other issues wouldn't. We can say that we lost the mesorah for tekheiles because it was no longer available, or that one person -- Rashi -- made a mistake in identifying shiboles shual (for which there may have not been a living mesorah beforehand) as oats, and everybody followed him. But to reject our ancestral pronunciation as mistaken would be to say that we can't rely on the mesorah to accurately transmit even something that's used every single day from one generation to the next, and this could be a more problematic assertion.

I have counter-arguments to both of these points, but they're still worth thinking about. Any thoughts?
D.C. | 04.21.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Information from Iowa State University regarding oats -- and wheat.

http://www.agron.iastate.edu/ cou...eat_history.htm

Petinent quotes:

"Probably the oldest known oat grains were found in Egypt among remains of the 12th Dynasty, which was about 2,000 B.C. These probably were weeds and not actually cultivated by the Egyptians. The oldest known cultivated oats were found in caves in Switzerland that are believed to belong to the Bronze Age."

"The history of oats is somewhat clouded because there are so many different species and subspecies, which makes identification of old remains very difficult. The chief modern center of greatest variety of forms is in Asia Minor where most all subspecies are in contact with each other. Many feel that the area with the greatest diversity of types is most likely where a particular plant originated."

The last sentence is based on the theory of evolutionary biology.

The article also repeats a famous quote that is based on the fact that oats have been a major staple grain in Scotland for many centuries:

'In Samuel Johnson's dictionary, oats were defined as "eaten by people in Scotland, but fit only for horses in England." The Scotsman's retort to this is, "That's why England has such good horses, and Scotland has such fine men!"'

Despite the fact that it has about 1/10 the population, Scotland had four universities at at time when England had two.
charliehall | 04.21.06 - 1:39 pm | #

"In general, I find the use of the term mesorah to be much overused. If Rashi uses a definition of a technical term in talmud, but there is no practical application, how does that become a mesorah?"

Did anyone feed oats to their animals on Pesach in Europe?

Was anyone makpid to avoid feeding animals kitniyos on Pesach?

If the answer is no and no, there's your mesora.
Anonymous | 04.21.06 - 1:47 pm | #

"thaf"

That should be "thaw"
Grey Area | 04.21.06 - 1:55 pm | #

To me, it seems that the question about products that are new-world is different than the question about oats. When the custom of avoiding kitniyos was promulgated they could not have intended it to cover oats

Presumably, they could not have not intend it to to cover maize, quinoa, or peanut (well maybe the peanut).
JoeCool | 04.21.06 - 2:18 pm | #

"Presumably, they could not have not intend it to to cover maize, quinoa, or peanut (well maybe the peanut)."

the point is that oats definitely weren't included.

I am curious if anyone knows what people used for animal feed on pesach
Anonymous | 04.21.06 - 2:45 pm | #

Nachum - you may be correct that apples were not cultivated in the ANE, but they did grow wild and were indeed edible. Acc. to Wikipedia (FWIW), apples were probably the earliest fruit to be cultivated. Not sure where your info is coming from. Feliks holds that tapuah is a wild apple.
Grey Area | 04.21.06 - 3:07 pm | #

Never heard of anyone feeding apples and oranges to cattle. Seems it would be a bit expensive and cow wouldn't like it. Seems like maize would be more apropriate, which is what my great grandfather and his family used.
JoeCool | 04.21.06 - 8:11 pm | #

Rav Baruch Simon Shlit"a in a shiur recently said that he used to go by Rav Shachter and eat a kezayis of mezonos with oats. However, after a conversation with Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, where he was told to make mezonos on oats and not to worry about Rabbi Felix's shita, he stopped.
Tsvi | Homepage | 04.22.06 - 9:41 pm | #

Of course, R' Shachter and R' Auerbach have quite different attitudes toward evidence from those types of sources.
Nachum Lamm | 04.23.06 - 12:27 am | #

RHS's source for tapuach=citrus is
Tasafos Taanis 29b d'h shel
mavin | 04.23.06 - 3:28 am | #

"Of course, R' Shachter and R' Auerbach have quite different attitudes toward evidence from those types of sources."

What is R Auerbach's attitude to evidence from those type of sources?
Anonymous | 04.23.06 - 9:27 am | #

Thanks, Mavin!
Grey Area | 04.23.06 - 11:48 am | #

Tal, short of Eliyahu, then, how would you propose reinstating tekhelet today, with a mesorah completely lost? This has implications for rebuilding the Mikdash and offering the Korban Pesach. All these are mitzvot, and we cannot push them off "until Eliyahu"- we must finds ways to do them now.

I don't really hear any great clamor for reinstating the avodah or rebuilding the Beis ha Mikdash prior to Bias ha Goel.

In fact, there are many other serious halakhic issues with rebuilding the BHMK and reinstituting the korban Pesach than techeiles. On the former, we do not even know the correct placement of the Mizbeach and the Kodesh Kadoshim -- which was known by masorah when the Bayis Sheni was reconstructed.

As to Korban Pesach, I believe R. Bleich had an article some time ago where he listed the various halakhic issues involved. One I recall has to do with whether one removes the gid ha nasheh before or after roasting the korban. The Rambam says after. The Raavad, characteristically, writes that if the Rambam would bring such a korban to him he would throw it down in front of his feet!

So I am not all bothered by the fact that the theoretical "chiyyuv" to rebuild the BHMK and bring korbanos has halakhic impediments which will not be resolved before Eliyahu ha Novi comes.
Tal Benschar | 04.23.06 - 11:55 am | #

Tal, it isn't a "theoretical" chiyyuv. It's a mitzvah d'oraysa, applicable at all times, even now, "clamor" or not. You can't just dismiss it. Want to know the location of the mizbeach and kodesh hakadashim? Do research on the Temple Mount. Actually, it's been done, and resolved. Some look for reasons not to do things, and are content (or desirous) to wait a long time, possibly forever. Others don't, and point out that there are no real halakhic impediments.

Anonymous, the sources I'm referring to are those from "non-frum" persons or books. Some would dismiss Prof. Feliks (or the P'til Tekhelet people, or any YU Rosh Yeshiva, etc. etc.) out of hand because they're not "kosher" enough. I'm not saying R' Auerbach would do so, but he certainly would be less open to some sources than others- leaving aside who these people are, which I'm pretty sure wouldn't be an issue for him, there's an issue of how one regards the halachic process, and what is given more weight. The person making the claim wouldn't matter as much to R' Schachter, of course, and he would give more weight (not overwhelming, of course) to such research as part of the halachic process.
Nachum Lamm | 04.23.06 - 12:11 pm | #

Nahum, in the first place, the obvious point is that we are pattur because Ones rachamana patrei . No one is rebuilding the BHMK today for one rather obvious reason: The Arabs would start a world wide conflagration that would make the intifada look like tiddlywinks.

Second, there are halakhic reasons why we cannot bring most korbanos today -- starting with the tochacha where it states "ve lo ariach reiach nichochachem." Until that curse is lifted (as indicated by a Novi) we are barred from bringing most korbanos (but NOT korban pesach, interestingly enough, since that does NOT require reiach nichoach).

The research on the Temple Mount did not "resolve" anything. It may be an educated guess as to where each thing was, but that is as far as it goes -- an educated guess. Interesting to discuss, perhaps, but not the basis of an halakhic decision.

Today, we fulfill our obligation to bring korbanos by learning those parshiyos -- uneshalma farim sefaseinu. More than that no one is going to do prior to the Messianic era.

You are correct that we have a "chiyyuv" min ha Torah to build the BHMK and bring korbanos. The fact that there is such a chiyyuv, however, is not a reason to posit that we can shortcut halakhic requirements or suddenly decide that we can rely on archaeology and other educated guesses to determine what heretofore the halakha required a masorah to determine.
Tal Benschar | 04.23.06 - 12:42 pm | #

"Anonymous, the sources I'm referring to are those from "non-frum" persons or books. Some would dismiss Prof. Feliks (or the P'til Tekhelet people, or any YU Rosh Yeshiva, etc. etc.) out of hand because they're not "kosher" enough. I'm not saying R' Auerbach would do so, but he certainly would be less open to some sources than others- leaving aside who these people are, which I'm pretty sure wouldn't be an issue for him, there's an issue of how one regards the halachic process, and what is given more weight. The person making the claim wouldn't matter as much to R' Schachter, of course, and he would give more weight (not overwhelming, of course) to such research as part of the halachic process."

You admit that the first concern doesn't apply to RSZA!
Please expound on the second as it relates to RSZA and his psakim.
Anonymous | 04.23.06 - 4:29 pm | #

Yes, I admit that. What I've seen about him shows him not to be a person well-swayed by such things. Alas, his type is little seen today in the world in which he lived.

As to the second: I know of no definitive statement, only a pattern of p'sak from both. I imagine it goes to what community you're part of, where you were educated, who you are paskening for. But it's a simple fact that some poskim will say, "Well, if the preponderance of scientific evidence says X, then I'd better consider carefully whether X is halacha, while, of course, giving due weight- more weight, in fact- to mesorah and the traditional way of paskening." Others will say, "Well, of the preponderance of mesorah and the traditional way of paskening says X, then scientific evidence ranks pretty low if I want to contradict that."

Tal, you are depending on miracles to allow you to fulfill a mitzvah, and depending on aggadita to say that you don't have to. Neither approach is a viable halakhic approach. The arrival of Mashiach will be accompanied by no supernatural events, says the Rambam, our leading authority on such matters. So even if/when Mashiach arrives, you will still be left, under your conditions, being unable to rebuild the Mikdash.
Nachum Lamm | 04.23.06 - 4:59 pm | #

"As to the second: I know of no definitive statement, only a pattern of p'sak from both. I imagine it goes to what community you're part of, where you were educated, who you are paskening for. But it's a simple fact that some poskim will say, "Well, if the preponderance of scientific evidence says X, then I'd better consider carefully whether X is halacha, while, of course, giving due weight- more weight, in fact- to mesorah and the traditional way of paskening." Others will say, "Well, of the preponderance of mesorah and the traditional way of paskening says X, then scientific evidence ranks pretty low if I want to contradict that."

How does this pattern of psak demonstrates itself for RSZA. An example or two will suffice.
Anonymous | 04.23.06 - 7:40 pm | #

See Tsvi, above.
Nachum Lamm | 04.23.06 - 8:32 pm | #

That's completely circular. You made an assertion about what Tsvi said that needs backing up with external evidence.
Anonymous | 04.23.06 - 9:05 pm | #

Tal, you are depending on miracles to allow you to fulfill a mitzvah, and depending on aggadita to say that you don't have to. Neither approach is a viable halakhic approach. The arrival of Mashiach will be accompanied by no supernatural events, says the Rambam, our leading authority on such matters. So even if/when Mashiach arrives, you will still be left, under your conditions, being unable to rebuild the Mikdash.

That Eliyahu Ha Navi was a chacham who knew of the masorah on various halakhich issues is hardly miraculous.

That his coming will precede the bias ha Goel is predicted in Malachi, not an aggadata.

In fact, many Rishonim rely on this for, e.g., the reinstitution of semicha.

In any event, all of this is, as the gemara says, hilchesa lemeshikha. Whether through Eliyahu ha Novi or some other means, the masorah will be restored in yemos ha Mashiach. That does not give us license to posit that this will be through archaeological speculation, and hence that must be valid for our current halakhic issues, like techeiles.
Tal Benschar | 04.24.06 - 12:17 pm | #

Hi! This is a really great post. If anyone is administrating this blog still, I just want to let you know the trackback thingie doesn't work.
(& you can delete this comment!)
Sandee | Homepage | 04.29.08 - 10:59 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan